Winslet v Associated Newspapers Ltd

Acceptance of an offer of amends under the Defamation Act 1996 does not exclude an application for permission to read a unilateral statement in open court. Such an application is not a continuation of the defamation proceedings or an attempt to enforce the statutory offer. It is a separate incident of settling libel proceedings, governed by CPR 53PD 6.1. The offer of amends regime and the Practice Direction were intended to operate together. Permission may be granted where the proposed statement is fair and proportionate and its publication causes no injustice to the defendant.

The claimant brought libel proceedings concerning a newspaper article which alleged that she had publicly lied about her exercise regime. The defendant made an unqualified offer of amends under sections 2 to 4 of the Defamation Act 1996. The parties agreed compensation and costs, but disagreed about the adequacy of the defendant’s apology. The claimant applied under CPR 53PD 6.1 for permission to read a unilateral statement in open court. The defendant argued that the statutory regime permitted only the offeror to make such a statement and that the application would continue the proceedings contrary to section 3(2). The central issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to permit the statement after acceptance of the offer of amends.

1. The court had jurisdiction to permit a statement in open court following settlement under the offer of amends regime. The application was granted.
2. Section 3(2) of the Defamation Act 1996 prevents the accepting party from bringing or continuing substantive proceedings concerning the publication. An application to make a statement in open court immediately after settlement is not a continuation of the proceedings in any real or technical sense. It forms part of bringing them to a conclusion.
3. The statutory provisions concern enforcement of the offer of amends. A claimant’s application for a unilateral statement is a separate and independent procedural step. It is an incident of the settlement of libel proceedings generally and does not depend on the statutory provisions for its legal basis.
4. CPR 53PD 6.1 is expressed broadly to permit an application where a party wishes to accept a Part 36 offer or other offer of settlement in relation to a claim for libel. The Practice Direction came into force on the same day as the offer of amends regime. There was no basis for implying an exception for settlements under sections 2 to 4.
5. The public policy of encouraging settlement supported that construction. The defendant’s statutory protection against being required to publish an apology it did not believe to be true was not infringed by a clearly unilateral statement representing the claimant’s position.
6. There was no unfairness or inconsistency in allowing the proposed statement. The defendant had acknowledged that the allegations were false, while the claimant sought only a fair and proportionate opportunity to publicise her understanding of the settlement. Permission was therefore granted for the statement to be read in open court.